Re: propagating repo corruption across clone

["Philip Oakley" <philipoakley@iee.org>]

From: "Jeff King" <peff@peff.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 4:55 PM
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 09:43:01AM -0400, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:32:50PM -0400, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
>> >> For commit corruptions, the --no-hardlinks, non --mirror case
>> >> refused
>> >> to create the new repository and exited with an error code of 128.
>> >> The
>> >> --no-hardlinks, --mirror case spewed errors to the console, yet
>> >> *still* created the new clone *and* returned an error code of
>> >> zero.
>> >
>> > I wasn't able to reproduce this; can you post a succint test case?
>>
>> [...link to tar.gz...]
>> Once you extract that, you should be able to run a clone using paths
>> (not file://) with --no-hardlinks --mirror and replicate the behavior
>> I saw. FYI, I'm on Git 1.8.2.
>
> Thanks for providing an example.
>
> The difference is the same "--mirror implies --bare" issue; the
> non-bare
> case dies during the checkout (even before my patches, as the
> corruption
> is not in a blob, but rather in the HEAD commit object itself). You
> can
> replace --mirror with --bare and see the same behavior.
>
> The troubling part is that we see errors in the bare case, but do not
> die. Those errors all come from upload-pack, the "sending" side of a
> clone/fetch. Even though we do not transfer the objects via the git
> protocol, we still invoke upload-pack to get the ref list (and then
> copy
> the objects themselves out-of-band).
>
> What happens is that upload-pack sees the errors while trying to see
> if
> the object is a tag that can be peeled (the server advertises both
> tags
> and the objects they point to). It does not distinguish between
> "errors
> did not let me peel this object" and "this object is not a tag, and
> therefore there is nothing to peel".
>
> We could change that, but I'm not sure whether it is a good idea. I
> think the intent is that upload-pack's ref advertisement would remain
> resilient to corruption in the repository (e.g., even if that commit
> is
> corrupt, you can still fetch the rest of the data). We should not
> worry
> about advertising broken objects, because we will encounter the same
> error when we actually do try to send the objects. Dying at the
> advertisement phase would be premature, since we do not yet know what
> the client will request.
>
> The problem, of course, is that the --local optimization _skips_ the
> part where we actually ask upload-pack for data, and instead blindly
> copies it. So this is the same issue as usual, which is that the local
> transport is not thorough enough to catch corruption. It seems like a
> failing in this case, because upload-pack does notice the problem, but
> that is only luck; if the corruption were in a non-tip object, it
> would
> not notice it at all. So trying to die on errors in the ref
> advertisement would just be a band-aid. Fundamentally the problem is
> that the --local transport is not safe from propagating corruption,
> and
> should not be used if that's a requirement.
>
> -Peff
> --

Which way does `git bundle file.bundl --all` perform after the changes
for both the 'transport' checking and being reliable during updates.

Is it an option for creating an archivable file that can be used for a
later `clone`?

I wasn't sure if the bundle capability had been considered.

Philip